Applicability Of Section 27A Is Seriously Questionable: SC Upholds Bail Granted To NDPS Accused S. 354 IPC Not Attracted If Woman Herself Didn't Perceive The Act Of Catching Hold Of Her Hand As Invading Her...
π Context:
The case is about Section 27A of the NDPS Act, 1985, which deals with financing illicit traffic and harboring offenders. This is one of the most serious provisions under the Act because it carries very strict punishment (10 to 20 years imprisonment + heavy fine).
Since it is very serious, if Section 27A is applied to an accused, getting bail becomes extremely difficult.
π What the Supreme Court Said:
The Supreme Court recently upheld the bail granted to an accused charged under the NDPS Act.
The Court observed that the βapplicability of Section 27Aβ is highly questionable in this case.
This means that the prosecution was not able to properly show that the accused was financing drug trafficking or harboring offenders (which are the two main ingredients of Section 27A).
Just being in possession of drugs or being linked to some drug case is not enough for Section 27A to apply.
π Key Principle from Judgment:
Section 27A has limited scope β It applies only when there is clear evidence that a person was:
Financing illicit traffic in drugs, or
Harboring offenders who are engaged in drug trafficking.
Mere recovery of narcotics or small role in a case cannot automatically bring an accused under Section 27A.
If prosecution fails to prove financial support or harboring, then Section 27A cannot be sustained.
π Why Bail Was Upheld:
The trial court and the High Court had already granted bail.
The Supreme Court said that since Section 27Aβs applicability itself was doubtful, the rigors of bail restriction under NDPS Act (Section 37) would not strictly apply.
Therefore, the bail granted to the accused was justified.
π Important Case Laws (Related):
Union of India v. Rattan Mallik (2009) β Bail should not be denied mechanically under NDPS; courts must see whether allegations fit the section.
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020) β Confession to a police officer under NDPS is not admissible as evidence.
Supreme Court in several cases has said Section 27A should be narrowly interpreted because it imposes very harsh punishment.
β In short: The Supreme Court said that Section 27A NDPS should not be applied casually. Since there was no proper evidence of financing or harboring, the bail already granted to the accused was upheld.
RELATED Blog
0 comments